If the church was in hiding ...

[placido]

OK, well after spending literally hours after combing over this thread I’ve noticed something about brother Parker’s arguments that brother placido, as much as you have valiantly done you have missed. Its that Parker is consistently contradicting himself.

Please don’t try do show him where he contradicts himself. He will always try and find a crafty way around his contradictions.

placido

 

[ParkerD]

Yes, but unlike Peter, John did not have the keys (Matthew 16:19).

That is like saying the most experienced member of the Congress authomatically becomes the president of the USA. In real life things don’t work like that.

placido

Placido,
John had keys. He was a prophetic leader who received a prophetic vision. He had the authority to receive that vision and to write it down for the benefit of future people on earth. If you don’t think he had authority, then we have no basis for discussion. If Peter was passing on keys, why would he give them to Linus instead of to John? That makes absolutely no sense to me–sorry.

 

[placido]

Placido,
John wrote the book of Revelation using symbolism and “types”.

In which case the child also becomes a symbol or a “type” and not really Christ as you said.

If you think his use of the word woman means Mary the mother of Christ, then it would be interesting to read your interpretation of the entire vision.

If the woman can’t be Mary then the child can’t be Jesus. If the child is Christ, then the woman who gave birth to Jesus is Mary. Remember: you said the woman is the church, but that is not the whole truth since the church did not give birth to Jesus.

When Christ is described as the “Son of David”, then the Bible was talking about His ancestry, no?

Yes, “David”. That is a person giving birth to a person - even when reffering to ancestry.

placido

 

[ParkerD]

Hi ParkerD, could you kindly expound on this?

A new name does not necessarily invalidate the old one. If I recall correctly, Jacob was still referred to as Jacob even after Yahweh changed his name.

Does it matter if Jesus used “Simon” instead of Peter? Offhand, I can think of alternative interpretations.

1. When Jesus asked Simon, son of John “do you love me?”, it was to reinstate Simon, who denied him 3 times. Only after Jesus said “feed my sheep” did Simon become worthy of the name Peter, and to directly follow the lord.
2. When Jesus questioned “Simon, son of John” thrice, he wanted to emphasise the human nature of his apostle. Simon was literally begotten by John (hence Simon, son of John), but Peter was called by Jesus to form the church as Cephas. So Jesus said, “Simon, son of John” because it wouldn’t really make sense to say “Peter, son of John”.
3. Other apostles recognise that Jesus changed Simon’s name to Peter (evident throughout the gospels). Even Paul recognised this. Doesn’t this apostolic recognition override any remaining doubts?

Sorry for jumping in suddenly like this, but i was following this thread, and am curious about this issue.

I am no expert on the bible, and I will appreciate if anyone can clarify my glosses, if any.

Hi, Lucky Boi,
Please don’t be discouraged when you read Luke 22:31 and 34 and see that Jesus called Simon or Peter either name, and it didn’t have to do with whether He was describing his “human nature” since both of those verses were about his “human nature.”

We don’t read that Jacob was ever referred to as “Jacob Israel”. It is a different kind of case.

 

[ParkerD]

In which case the child also becomes a symbol or a “type” and not really Christ as you said.

If the woman can’t be Mary then the child can’t be Jesus. If the child is Christ, then the woman who gave birth to Jesus is Mary. Remember: you said the woman is the church, but that is not the whole truth since the church did not give birth to Jesus.

Yes, “David”. That is a person giving birth to a person - even when reffering to ancestry.

placido

Hi, Placido,
We plainly differ. I really do give up as far as helping clarify anything for you. Have a great day. I’ve enjoyed the exchange of thoughts and ideas with you.

 

[placido]

Placido,
John had keys.

Give me a quote from the Bible.

He was a prophetic leader who received a prophetic vision.

Being a prophetic leader or having a prophetic vision is not equal to having the “keys”.

He had the authority to receive that vision and to write it down for the benefit of future people on earth.

Yes, but that does not mean he has the keys.

If you don’t think he had authority, then we have no basis for discussion.

He, like all other apostles, had authority - nobody disputes that. But that is not to say he had the “keys of the kingdom of heaven”.

If Peter was passing on keys, why would he give them to Linus instead of to John?

Why do you so desperately want to see the keys in John’s hands? Is that to provide you with more driving power in your misunderstanding of Revelation? In real life, we know that the chairmanship of an organization can be passed on to any body regardless whether one of the founding members of the organization is still alive.
No, upon the passing on the reigning pope, the oldest cardinal does not authomatically become the pope. You know what I mean.

That makes absolutely no sense to me–sorry.

That is okay. God’s plan doesn’ make sense to everybody.

placido

 

[placido]

Hi, Placido,
We plainly differ. I really do give up as far as helping clarify anything for you. Have a great day. I’ve enjoyed the exchange of thoughts and ideas with you.

Oh yes, we do differ. That is no “Breaking News”. But as to clarifying anything … I think you contradicted yourself too much, making it difficult to know what you really believe.
However, you are very polite and I thank you for that.

placido

 

[ParkerD]

The Questioner,
I have read your comments here, and appreciate the clarity of your remarks. I apologize that I did not tell Placido that he had misunderstood when he either thought that I had implied “wilderness” meant “heaven” (which I never thought–I was just allowing for his perspective as plausible for someone trying to understand symbolism) or else when he said the church was hiding in heaven that was his own thought.

I certainly make mistakes, and when in my own mind I told myself “let it go” when I first read his comment about the church hiding in heaven, I should have immediately responded “no–not heaven.”

I agree that “wilderness” and “desert” would be synonymous.

My belief is that the Sadducees do not qualify (unless some were completely repentant during life) to inherit a “joint throne” because they had knowledge and sinned against that knowledge, thus the most they can inherit is to become angels. Christ was talking to Sadducees when he told them that the brothers in their example become angels. He was not being contradictory–he was specifically answering their specific example with the specific doctrine about those particular brothers and about the Sadducees, who were obviously not accepting Christ as their Redeemer.

John wrote the book of Revelation addressing a larger audience than the members of the seven churches. He knew we would have the writings, and he wanted to convey a message to us.

One of your comments said the Holy Spirit would “stop a person from formalizing a false doctrine.” To me, that implies some kind of force–call it overriding a choice, or whatever one chooses to call it. I simply disagree that the Holy Spirit would override someone’s ability to make their own choice. It is a convenient way to assure that no doctrine of the church is ever a changed doctrine or an impure doctrine, and I guess that belief seems to work for a great number of people. It doesn’t work for me.

Saul (Paul) was acting out of the complete sincerity of his heart when he joined those Jews who did not believe in Christ. His immediate “about face” in his life after he was “confronted” was because of his sincerity and willingness to follow the Holy Spirit. He also accepted Peter’s leadership, which shows he had humility.

You wrote about the dragon or serpent in the book of Revelation, chapter 12. The “serpent cast out of his mouth water as a flood after the woman,…” (v. 15) “Water as a flood” would mean communication, writings, words, ideas, philosophies. That is what the serpent does best–flood the earth with incorrect philosophies to try and overcome those who “keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.” (v. 17) (I’m not saying whether you or anyone keeps the commandments and has a testimony in their own lives, or not.) The serpent works on everyone who tries to keep the commandments of God and has a testimony of Jesus Christ, regardless of their religion, and the serpent does this by flooding the earth with incorrect philosophies and ideas.

Again, thanks. Have a good day.

 

[rinnie]

Hi Parker, Don’t have much time. Wed is Mothers day for me. Since my Dad went to be with God almost 2 years ago, this is our day. Its my day off just for her. We actually have alot of fun again. Now if Papa was here he would put you on the right road real quick. He knew the bible up and down and all around. Read it for 83 years. I would have printed out this thread and he would be like the teacher giving us our grades. I am not sure how I would have done, but I know I would have done better than you

Sorry Parker, just messing with you. But here is something you must realize Parker and if he was here he would tell you this. We go by the teachings of the Church. God left us the Church for that reason. That is why people are separated in this world. Because we do not want to listen and obey the commandments Of God. Those ten commandments were big to him.

Now here is how he would tell you, He would say Jesus left Peter the keys to the kingdom. Then he would show you the scripture. Now if you would not accept that scripture which he would say is plain as day, Forget about it, he would tell me. Don’t argue with the Person. If he cannot accept the scripture and wants to turn it around you can’t help a person like that.

He would say show them the scripture, So let me try this again.

This is for your Papa:

Matt.16:16 Simon Peter said in reply you are the Messiah the Son of the living God. Jesus said to HIM in reply Blessed are YOU SIMON SON OF JONAH, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to YOU my but heavenly Father. And so I say to YOU you are PETER and upon this ROCK I will build my church and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. I will give YOU the KEYS TO THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN. Whatever YOU bind on earth is bound in heaven and whatever YOU loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

Then he would tell you that the RCC is ran that way still. Nothing in the RCC goes through without the POPE. The Other Apostles have the gift of the Holy Spirit. Yes they do, But they do not have the keys to the kingdom. He would say that is why nothing in the RCC can pass through without the okay of the Pope. He still holds the keys to the kingdom and no twisting scriptures is gonna take them off of him.

Now if he is wrong, You must show me that. Because if he was wrong then the Church is wrong. And if the RCC is wrong could you please show me a Church that is run exactly the way Jesus said. Peter had the keys to bind on earth, and in heaven. Do you have those keys Parker, does your church leader? Mine does. Jesus said death would never take away that authority. Peter passed the keys. Its as simple as that.

You want to know why did Peter not pass them to John? I would not know. The same reason he gave the keys to Peter instead of John, or Matt. etc. Only God knows.

Jesus knew Peter was going to be the leader. Thats why he was harder on Peter, he knew the shoes Peter had to fill on earth. That is why he kept praying for Peter.

So when you ask where does the Pope get his authority easy THE KEYS Parker, THE KEYS. Jesus gave them to him. Have a great day!

 

[placido]

The Questioner,
I have read your comments here, and appreciate the clarity of your remarks. I apologize that I did not tell Placido that he had misunderstood when he either thought that I had implied “wilderness” meant “heaven” (which I never thought–I was just allowing for his perspective as plausible for someone trying to understand symbolism) or else when he said the church was hiding in heaven that was his own thought.

Oh no, you are destroying the respect I had for you. Please be honest with us and with yourself.
I did not say. I asked you a question and in your response you said “the Bible was on earth while the church was hiding in heaven”. That is exactly what you said - not me.

placido

 

[rinnie]

Parker, I am on my way out, But Im gonna MAKE YOUR DAY!

John did get the keys, and you lived to see it too.

Pope John Paul ll. So see, Jesus did give John the keys. But now he passed them on again. But hey Parker look how long he had them. Not sure but wasn’t he the longest in history to have em?

 

[wisdomseeker]

Wisdom Seeker,
Of course a church organization would not say the real church was hiding but it was taking its place for the time being. Any church organization would insist it was the right church.

John’s testimony in the book of Revelation would teach whoever would get the Bible in their hands and read that book. Besides this, Christ promised “seek and ye shall find” to every person in the world, regardless of the church organization they might belong to.

You are correct that “no one would see the hiding church.” That is what John was saying by saying it would be in the “wilderness.”

Those using the Bible to teach their people were doing an important thing, to the extent they were teaching about repenting of sins and believing in Jesus Christ, the living Savior and Redeemer. That is a starting point. After that basic beginning, the covenant gospel offers more. If offers sanctification and personal revelation through the power of the Holy Spirit throughout life. It offers growth in understanding and growth in the ability to really have charity and compassion in one’s relationships. This growth is part of the new covenant gospel–an essential part.

So if people had the Bible, they had the beginning. If they wanted more, they could ask for more through prayer and sincere study. They didn’t need a church or preachers to do that. If they came to the point of wanting to make sincere, heartfelt covenants with Jesus Christ, then they may have asked “what shall we do?” just like the people asked Peter in Acts 2:37. You will remember that Simeon recognized the baby Jesus as being the promised Messiah, but he had had to wait until the right time for the Savior’s birth. Waiting for the right time is part of how the gospel goes forth in the world. This is made clear over and over again in the Old Testament. That does not mean God is not mindful of every single person ever born. It just means He has a plan, and He is in charge of that plan, and that plan has a timetable that He is also in charge of–not men.

what Bible? when was the Bible compiled? was it when the church was in hiding? who compiled the Bible? who had the Bible?

 

[wisdomseeker]

Rinnie,
I think that when Christ said “thou art Peter,” He was not changing Simon’s name but was adding a descriptive word about the kind of person Simon was. (He still called him Simon many times, including after His resurrection.) I do indeed “disagree with Rock meaning Father” as a term talking about Peter, or Simon. I don’t agree that rock means father or that Peter was being described as father or papa or pope. I simply disagree. There is no scriptural basis for that belief. Tradition adds that belief, but tradition could do anything, because people make up tradition as they go along.

Tradition that comes from our ancestors the Jews. if you get to read the OT and even the on the NT, you will find out that Jews calls their spiritual leaders, those appointed by God, fathers. it is only common sense that Catholics would inherit such a Tradition. i dont understand why people who says they understand the Bible are blind to such a Tradition passed on to us Catholics. i can understand why people go on thinking that the CC makes all these thing up. it is because the CC is the Church Christ built. no one else can have the Tradition the CC has. no other can claim their church dates back to the Apostles. they just cant understand the CC because they cannot understand the Jews and God either.

 

[ParkerD]

1. About the time John wrote about it from the Isle of Patmos.
2. It was “in the wilderness,” and the “beast” was allowed to have power: (Revelation 13:7) “And it was given unto him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them: and power was given him over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations.”
3. John saw it happen in vision, and wrote down his vision, and you read the vision in the book of Revelation.
4. It comes out of hiding when you find it and have the same gifts of the Spirit that John had and that Paul had, and see with new eyes, and have a new birth–a second birth.

Placido,
This was my first entry on this thread.

 

[ParkerD]

You think the list was not that important and I think the list was that important. Now what makes your “thinking” better than my “thinking”?

You say the “church in hiding” was not on earth and you expect us to say “halleluiah”, no evidence needed.
Why not give us at least a date when the church was taken up to heaven and then reveal the source of your information, something like eye witness accounts?

Okay, that is the “contradictory” evidence of the “false church”. Now where is the evidence of the true church?

Does it really matter who the head of the “earthly church” was since the true church was in heaven anyway?
If what you are saying is true, then what happened is not “change of doctrines” because the “earthly church” was a totally different church altogether.
I do understand those fantasies very well …

placido

Placido,
This was the post (#23) where you used the language that said “the church was taken up to heaven” and “the true church was in heaven anyway”. I didn’t bring those words into the discussion but tried to later build on what I thought was something you were saying. I honestly didn’t realize you were setting me up so that you could later condemn me for allowing for your perspective, which was different than my own.

 

[ParkerD]

Parker D, I have one more question: where was the Bible while the church was in hiding in heaven?

placido

Placido,
This was your post (#51) which I followed with an acceptance of your perspective, because I didn’t think it was important to refute your use of the words “hiding in heaven”. You have certainly made it clear that I should never have accepted your words as a valid perspective, as “one way to look at it.” I live and learn.

 

[placido]

Originally Posted by ParkerD

1. About the time John wrote about it from the Isle of Patmos.
2. It was “in the wilderness,” and the “beast” was allowed to have power: (Revelation 13:7) “And it was given unto him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them: and power was given him over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations.”
3. John saw it happen in vision, and wrote down his vision, and you read the vision in the book of Revelation.
4. It comes out of hiding when you find it and have the same gifts of the Spirit that John had and that Paul had, and see with new eyes, and have a new birth–a second birth.

Placido,
This was my first entry on this thread.

I know!

Placido,
This was the post (#23) where you used the language that said “the church was taken up to heaven” and “the true church was in heaven anyway”. I didn’t bring those words into the discussion but tried to later build on what I thought was something you were saying. I honestly didn’t realize you were setting me up so that you could later condemn me for allowing for your perspective, which was different than my own.

The problem started with your post #22 when you said,

The church was not on the earth when it was “in hiding”

Saying “the church was not on earth” led me to conclude it was in heaven – where else? And instead of correcting me and giving me the “right” information, you decided to deceptively play along by saying, yes, “the church was in heaven” (post #53).

Placido,
This was your post (#51) which I followed with an acceptance of your perspective, because I didn’t think it was important to refute your use of the words “hiding in heaven”.

You are in a debate yet you don’t see the need to refute? Yet you continue to debate? There is something wrong somewhere.
If I understand yo correctly, you are saying:

1. “The church was not on earth” (post #22);
2. “The church was in hiding” (post #22);
3. “The church was hiding in the wilderness” (neither in heaven nor on earth);
   Now, you tell me where wilderness is located and the problem is solved.

placido

 

[ParkerD]

I know!

The problem started with your post #22 when you said,

Saying “the church was not on earth” led me to conclude it was in heaven – where else? And instead of correcting me and giving me the “right” information, you decided to deceptively play along by saying, yes, “the church was in heaven” (post #53).

You are in a debate yet you don’t see the need to refute? Yet you continue to debate? There is something wrong somewhere.
If I understand yo correctly, you are saying:

1. “The church was not on earth” (post #22);
2. “The church was in hiding” (post #22);
3. “The church was hiding in the wilderness” (neither in heaven nor on earth);
   Now, you tell me where wilderness is located and the problem is solved.

placido

Placido,
I have not considered this discussion a “debate.” I have not seen the need to “refute”. I consider this discussion to be sharing different perspectives.

“Wilderness” means “wilderness.” The church is definitely “in heaven” where Christ is. It is definitely in the spirit world where Christ preached the gospel to the spirits of the dead. The authority of the church was lost from the known, civilized world, for a long time. That is my perspective, which is based on the translated words of John and the translated words of Daniel, who both had visions about the end times before the Second Coming of Christ.

It is also based on the understanding that John had authority given to him by Jesus Christ as an apostle, which was greater authority than that of any bishop. If a bishop thought he as a bishop had more authority than John, then such a bishop was wrong.

 

[TheQuestioner]

The Questioner,
I have read your comments here, and appreciate the clarity of your remarks. I apologize that I did not tell Placido that he had misunderstood when he either thought that I had implied “wilderness” meant “heaven” (which I never thought–I was just allowing for his perspective as plausible for someone trying to understand symbolism) or else when he said the church was hiding in heaven that was his own thought.

If that is true then fine, I’m glad that was cleared up.

I certainly make mistakes, and when in my own mind I told myself “let it go” when I first read his comment about the church hiding in heaven, I should have immediately responded “no–not heaven.”

Understood

I agree that “wilderness” and “desert” would be synonymous.

My belief is that the Sadducees do not qualify (unless some were completely repentant during life) to inherit a “joint throne” because they had knowledge and sinned against that knowledge, thus the most they can inherit is to become angels. Christ was talking to Sadducees when he told them that the brothers in their example become angels. He was not being contradictory–he was specifically answering their specific example with the specific doctrine about those particular brothers and about the Sadducees, who were obviously not accepting Christ as their Redeemer.

See here is the problem. You are assuming here that the Sadducees would be raised as angels and the rest of the body of believers or those who are true believers would be raised as gods. This may be (I assume) a Mormon belief to reconcile this verse with the one in Revelations but it stems from a lack of understanding of what angels are.

Angels are purely spiritual beings (as opposed to physical beings which are both spiritual and material). So when we die we do essentially become like angels in our form since our spirit does not die. When we are resurrected we will once again be spiritual and material. To say someone will be raised from the dead as an angel is wrong because angels are spiritual and do not die and thus need not be raised. God too is a spiritual being and as such we cannot be like him.

So, in light of true interpretation both passages can be reconciled as this:

Taking into consideration Matthew 22
29Jesus replied, "You are in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God. 30At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven. 31But about the resurrection of the dead—have you not read what God said to you,

1. Jesus does not say that “you (Sadducees) will neither marry nor be given into marriage”, he says “people (thus all of us) will neither marry nor be given into marriage”, so he speaks about everyone, not just the Sadducees.
2. Jesus was clearly talking in the context of marraige. We will not become actual angels. No one will what so ever. Humans are now and always will be humans, but we will be like the angels in that we will not marry or have children, because angels themselves do not marry nor have children.

Now regarding the verses in Revelations:

Christ said we will be like him. How? In what way? Christ is God, will we be gods? No, of course not. Like stated before humans will be humans always. But, let us look at the God-man Christ. Christ, though divine, is a glorified human. So when Revelations says we will be like Christ, it does not mean that we will be gods. The bible over and over again says that there is one God (1 Cor 8:4, we can deal with the issue of the trinity later, but in light of it the bible makes much more sense). We will be like Jesus in that like him we will have glorified bodies, pure and inclined to the will of God. Immortal.

In light of these views (Jesus is God and humans will always be human) both these passages are non-contradictary. But if humans can become not human and Jesus and God are seperate both these passages become highly problematic.

John wrote the book of Revelation addressing a larger audience than the members of the seven churches. He knew we would have the writings, and he wanted to convey a message to us.

Yes, he was addressing the whole Church. If he was the last of the Church then essentially he would be addressing himself. The Church going into hiding makes the very beginning of Revelations problematic.

One of your comments said the Holy Spirit would “stop a person from formalizing a false doctrine.” To me, that implies some kind of force–call it overriding a choice, or whatever one chooses to call it. I simply disagree that the Holy Spirit would override someone’s ability to make their own choice. It is a convenient way to assure that no doctrine of the church is ever a changed doctrine or an impure doctrine, and I guess that belief seems to work for a great number of people. It doesn’t work for me.

You are misunderstanding the Holy Spirit stoping a Pope from formally declaring heresy with the Holy Spirit somehow changing someone’s will. The Holy Spirit does not just zap a Pope with fuzzy feelings and thus he will not declare a false doctrine. The Holy Spirit, whether a doctrine is true or false, must compell a Pope to make a doctrine formal. Thus even if the doctrine was say “Jesus loves us” unless the Pope is compelled by the Spirit he will not declare it. Thus the Spirit will not compell any of the bishops or cardinals or Popes to declare any false doctrine. A Pope may try, but the Spirit may compell the bishops to oppose him. The Bishops may ask, but the Spirit may not compell the Pope to agree. If God will have to rain down fire from heaven to stop the declaration of a false doctrine i have no doubt in my mind he will do it. But he will not touch the free will of its members. Remember “will” does not mean “do”. Just becuase a child has free will to steal does not mean he has the right to do it and as a parent if you must use force to stop him you have the right to. You are not hindering his free will because he can still have the will to steal. In the same way just because God hinders someone from doing wrong does not mean he is taking away their free will. You are making the classic mistake of equating “willing” to “doing”.

 

[TheQuestioner]

Saul (Paul) was acting out of the complete sincerity of his heart when he joined those Jews who did not believe in Christ. His immediate “about face” in his life after he was “confronted” was because of his sincerity and willingness to follow the Holy Spirit. He also accepted Peter’s leadership, which shows he had humility.

You stated that God does not confront anyone and now that Paul is brought up you have provided an excuse that lacks consistency and understanding of the word “will”. Instead of admitting that the Holy Spirit could indeed lead the Church you have made the valid rebuttal that the Holy Spirty wont unless called on but falsely assumed no one did this. You also mad the false assumption that the HS only calls those who are willing and thus had to say that God does not confront anyone and put yourself in an undefendable position. You would have been better off by saying that the Holy Spirit could have lead the Church but chose not to till Joseph Smith. I think that may be more in line with Mormon thought. Let me show you why you made a huge mistake.

Yes, like i stated above, God did not touch Paul’s will. If Paul wanted to go against Christ even after he was confronted by him he could have done so. But he chose not to. It was an active choice which was brought on by his vision, but still a choice. If you want to talk about sincerity as an excuse to say that God was not really confronting Paul then I will throw you another example. What about Jonah? Jonah had no sincerity at all to be a prophet, but God confronted him with a storm and a whale. After that he had sincerity. Still, if he wanted to he could have tried to run again. Or Moses, who was continually afraid. Moses lived in a time where mankind was henotheistic (all gods were real) and was afraid of Pharoah and his gods. Still he went when God yelled at him.

Exodus 4

13 But Moses said, “O Lord, please send someone else to do it.”
14 Then the LORD’s anger burned against Moses and he said, “What about your brother, Aaron the Levite? I know he can speak well. He is already on his way to meet you, and his heart will be glad when he sees you. 15 You shall speak to him and put words in his mouth; I will help both of you speak and will teach you what to do. 16 He will speak to the people for you, and it will be as if he were your mouth and as if you were God to him. 17 But take this staff in your hand so you can perform miraculous signs with it.”

Again God did not touch Moses’ will. And what about Pharoah, who did not want to let the Israelites go? Did he suddenly go “you know what…fine” so that God did not have to confront him. No. It took 10 plagues in order to convince him to make the free choice of letting the Hebrews go (If God wanted he could have even wiped Pharoah off the face of the Earth). What about the Hebrews when they betrayed God with the Golden Calf? Did God go “hey, they don’t want me, i wont force them”? No. He told Moses to collect some people and kill those who had rebelled. This served as an example to those who would even dare think of it again. Once again, no one’s will was touched. Or what about the Canaanites? Did God say “well they were not willing to give up the land so we should find a new place”? No. He told the Israelites to drive every last one from their land, even their livestock. There are so many more examples i could use but wont bother doing. I think I made my point.

You wrote about the dragon or serpent in the book of Revelation, chapter 12. The “serpent cast out of his mouth water as a flood after the woman,…” (v. 15) “Water as a flood” would mean communication, writings, words, ideas, philosophies. That is what the serpent does best–flood the earth with incorrect philosophies to try and overcome those who “keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.” (v. 17) (I’m not saying whether you or anyone keeps the commandments and has a testimony in their own lives, or not.) The serpent works on everyone who tries to keep the commandments of God and has a testimony of Jesus Christ, regardless of their religion, and the serpent does this by flooding the earth with incorrect philosophies and ideas.

Is the woman a Church? Remember that the woman was taken into heaven after the wilderness. As such if the wilderness was “hiding” and it is taken into heaven after hiding it would mean that no Church on earth can be the true Church, because after the hiding the Church went to heaven. Mary would be a good analogy for the woman. Her other children (who she did not give birth to in Revelations and thus are most likely adopted children, which incidently we Catholics sometimes call ourselves, the adopted Children of our Mother Mary) were persecuted, who were the Church here on earth. In a Catholic light this verse makes much more sense. However because it is the book of Revelations both of these explainations could be wrong, it could be a whole other thing or both. Thus to say the woman in Revelations was the Church is problematic and can be wrong.

Parker. I just wanted to thank you for continually answering posts on this thread. At no point did you drop off the map and go missing nor did you purposefully not answer a post to the best of your ability. I have alot of respect for people like you. I can see that you are not merely spitting out rhetoric but know and believe what you have be taught. Though we disagree on the truth I can respect the fact that you are not the type to let emotion overcome you on the internet. Thank you